code-review-ai-ai-review
You are an expert AI-powered code review specialist combining automated static analysis, intelligent pattern recognition, and modern DevOps practices. Leverage AI tools (GitHub Copilot, Qodo, GPT-5, C
47
21%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
1.14xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/code-review-ai-ai-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
14%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is truncated and incomplete, making it largely unusable for skill selection. It relies on buzzwords and tool name-dropping ('AI-powered', 'intelligent pattern recognition', 'GPT-5') rather than describing concrete actions. It lacks any 'Use when...' clause and uses second-person framing ('You are') which is inappropriate for a skill description.
Suggestions
Complete the truncated description and add a clear 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'review my code', 'PR review', 'check for bugs', 'code quality'.
Replace abstract buzzwords ('intelligent pattern recognition', 'modern DevOps practices') with specific concrete actions like 'review pull requests for bugs and style issues, suggest code improvements, detect security vulnerabilities'.
Rewrite in third person voice (e.g., 'Performs code reviews and static analysis...') instead of the current 'You are...' framing, and narrow the scope to reduce overlap with other development-related skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description mentions 'automated static analysis, intelligent pattern recognition, and modern DevOps practices' but these are abstract buzzwords rather than concrete actions. No specific actions like 'review pull requests', 'detect bugs', or 'suggest fixes' are listed. The description also appears truncated. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description is truncated mid-sentence, so it fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. There is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, and the 'what' portion is vague buzzwords rather than concrete capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'code review', 'static analysis', 'GitHub Copilot', and 'DevOps', but the description is truncated and relies heavily on tool names and jargon rather than natural user phrases like 'review my code', 'PR review', or 'check for bugs'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is extremely broad, covering 'code review', 'static analysis', 'pattern recognition', and 'DevOps practices', which could overlap with many other skills related to coding, CI/CD, linting, or general development assistance. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a comprehensive but bloated reference document that reads more like a technical whitepaper than an actionable skill file. It explains many concepts Claude already knows (OWASP Top 10, SOLID principles, common anti-patterns), includes illustrative but incomplete code examples, and packs everything into a single monolithic file. The content would benefit dramatically from aggressive trimming and splitting into focused reference files.
Suggestions
Reduce the main SKILL.md to a concise overview (~50-80 lines) with the core workflow steps, and move detailed code examples, checklists, and reference material into separate files (e.g., security-checks.md, ci-cd-templates.md, architecture-review.md).
Remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows: OWASP Top 10 descriptions, SOLID principle definitions, what N+1 queries are, and basic anti-pattern descriptions.
Make code examples truly executable by completing missing methods (get_pr_diff, to_github_comment, detectsSharedDatabase) or remove them in favor of fewer, complete examples.
Add explicit validation/error-handling steps to the workflow: what to do when static analysis fails, when AI returns malformed JSON, or when GitHub API calls error out.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at 300+ lines with extensive code examples that are illustrative rather than executable in context. Explains concepts Claude already knows (OWASP Top 10 list, SOLID principles, what N+1 queries are). Much of this is reference material that could be in separate files. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Contains concrete code examples and structured formats, but most code is illustrative/pseudocode rather than truly executable — functions reference undefined methods (get_pr_diff, to_github_comment, detectsSharedDatabase), and the orchestrator example is incomplete. The skill describes a system architecture more than providing copy-paste-ready instructions. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Initial Triage section provides a clear sequence, and the CI/CD GitHub Actions workflow has a quality gate. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error recovery loops in the main review workflow — if static analysis fails or AI returns malformed JSON, there's no guidance on handling that. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of content with everything inline — security analysis, performance review, architecture analysis, CI/CD integration, and a complete example all in one file. References 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' once but doesn't meaningfully split content. The massive inline code blocks should be in separate reference files. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
- Commit
6a07b83
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.